Re: Dan Kegel : winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Module: wine Branch: master Commit: faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948b6306eff3808a2 URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948...
Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700
winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
---
programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c index bfa6ec5..c0ec058 100644 --- a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c +++ b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(winecfg);
-#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* the maximum number of characters in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty, what kind of crazy person runs their screen >10,000 pixels across? */ +#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* max number of digits in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty */ #define MINDPI 96 -#define MAXDPI 480 +#define MAXDPI 144 /* making this too high surprises and hurts users */ #define DEFDPI 96
#define IDT_DPIEDIT 0x1234
Dan, this basically reverted commit 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for higher DPI settings. I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
Module: wine Branch: master Commit: faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948b6306eff3808a2 URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948...
Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700
winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
---
programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c index bfa6ec5..c0ec058 100644 --- a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c +++ b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(winecfg);
-#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* the maximum number of characters in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty, what kind of crazy person runs their screen >10,000 pixels across? */ +#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* max number of digits in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty */ #define MINDPI 96 -#define MAXDPI 480 +#define MAXDPI 144 /* making this too high surprises and hurts users */ #define DEFDPI 96
#define IDT_DPIEDIT 0x1234
Dan, this basically reverted commit 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for higher DPI settings.
I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war.
Please see bug 9715.
On 4/26/08, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>
wrote:
Module: wine Branch: master Commit: faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948b6306eff3808a2 URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948...
Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700
winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
---
programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c index bfa6ec5..c0ec058 100644 --- a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c +++ b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@
WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(winecfg);
-#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* the maximum number of characters in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty, what kind of crazy person runs their screen >10,000 pixels across? */ +#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* max number of digits in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty */ #define MINDPI 96 -#define MAXDPI 480 +#define MAXDPI 144 /* making this too high surprises and hurts users */ #define DEFDPI 96
#define IDT_DPIEDIT 0x1234
Dan, this basically reverted commit 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for higher DPI settings.
I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war.
Please see bug 9715.
The change was specifically requested. A warning if someone sets it over
150, or a small explanation in winecfg would be better IMHO.
Austin English wrote:
On 4/26/08, *Lei Zhang* <thestig(a)google.com <mailto:thestig(a)google.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com <mailto:thestig(a)google.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org <mailto:julliard(a)winehq.org>> wrote: > > Module: wine > > Branch: master > > Commit: faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948b6306eff3808a2 > > URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948... > > > > Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com <mailto:dank(a)kegel.com>> > > Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700 > > > > winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values. > > > > --- > > > > programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c > > index bfa6ec5..c0ec058 100644 > > --- a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c > > +++ b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c > > @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ > > > > WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(winecfg); > > > > -#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* the maximum number of characters in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty, what kind of crazy person runs their screen >10,000 pixels across? */ > > +#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* max number of digits in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty */ > > #define MINDPI 96 > > -#define MAXDPI 480 > > +#define MAXDPI 144 /* making this too high surprises and hurts users */ > > #define DEFDPI 96 > > > > #define IDT_DPIEDIT 0x1234 > > > > > > > > > > Dan, this basically reverted commit > 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 > to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for > higher DPI settings. > > I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war. >
Please see bug 9715.
The change was specifically requested. A warning if someone sets it over 150, or a small explanation in winecfg would be better IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who wants more then 150 they can change that in the registry. Honestly I've yet to see a single device with such a high DPI! And since by definition users will do everything to screw themselves up we have to make it hard enough so majority will just give up. Vitaliy.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Vitaliy Margolen <wine-devel(a)kievinfo.com> wrote:
Austin English wrote:
On 4/26/08, *Lei Zhang* <thestig(a)google.com <mailto:thestig(a)google.com>>
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com
<mailto:thestig(a)google.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Alexandre Julliard
<julliard(a)winehq.org <mailto:julliard(a)winehq.org>> wrote: > > Module: wine > > Branch: master > > Commit: faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948b6306eff3808a2 > > URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948... > > > > Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com <mailto:dank(a)kegel.com>>
> > Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700 > > > > winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values. > > > > --- > > > > programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c > > index bfa6ec5..c0ec058 100644 > > --- a/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c > > +++ b/programs/winecfg/x11drvdlg.c > > @@ -35,9 +35,9 @@ > > > > WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(winecfg); > > > > -#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* the maximum number of characters in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty, what kind of crazy person runs their screen >10,000 pixels across? */ > > +#define RES_MAXLEN 5 /* max number of digits in a screen dimension. 5 digits should be plenty */ > > #define MINDPI 96 > > -#define MAXDPI 480 > > +#define MAXDPI 144 /* making this too high surprises and hurts users */ > > #define DEFDPI 96 > > > > #define IDT_DPIEDIT 0x1234 > > > > > > > > > > Dan, this basically reverted commit > 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 > to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for > higher DPI settings. > > I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war. >
Please see bug 9715.
The change was specifically requested. A warning if someone sets it over 150, or a small explanation in winecfg would be better IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who wants more then 150 they can change that in the registry. Honestly I've yet to see a single device with such a high DPI!
And since by definition users will do everything to screw themselves up we have to make it hard enough so majority will just give up.
Vitaliy.
How about something like the following, along with restoring back to 480 max? diff --git a/programs/winecfg/En.rc b/programs/winecfg/En.rc index 65b6fd1..97550c0 100644 --- a/programs/winecfg/En.rc +++ b/programs/winecfg/En.rc @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ BEGIN COMBOBOX IDC_D3D_VSHADER_MODE,100,201,145,70,CBS_DROPDOWNLIST | WS_VSCROLL | WS_TABSTOP CONTROL "Allow &Pixel Shader (if supported by hardware)",IDC_D3D_PSHADER_MODE,"Button",BS_AUTOCHECKBOX | WS_TABSTOP,15,219,230,10 - GROUPBOX " Screen &Resolution ",IDC_STATIC,8,242,244,25 + GROUPBOX " Screen &Resolution - Don't change this if you don't know what it is! ",IDC_STATIC,8,242,244,25 CONTROL "", IDC_RES_TRACKBAR, "msctls_trackbar32",WS_TABSTOP,12,250,187,15 EDITTEXT IDC_RES_DPIEDIT,204,250,23,13,ES_NUMBER|WS_TABSTOP LTEXT "dpi",IDC_STATIC,235,252,10,8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vitaliy Margolen wrote: | For anyone who wants more then 150 they can change that in the registry. | Honestly I've yet to see a single device with such a high DPI! I have ported Wine to run on the OLPC XO, which has a 200 DPI screen. I am currently running Wine at 160 DPI, which makes the fonts somewhat small but improves the ability of Windows apps to fit on the 7.5" screen. Also, some Windows software runs badly at high DPI. Some of Wine's own utilities, such as wordpad.exe, seem to malfunction even at 160 dpi. - --Ben P.S. If you have an XO, you may try out Wine for XO from http://dev.laptop.org/~bemasc/DOSConsole-3.xo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIE5W/UJT6e6HFtqQRAs1tAKChfwNIHwozyCd6UGAYFXRla0QIxQCgkUqk EvCic33qC8VRgzZjScvLSk4= =dn3X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:54:14PM -0600, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
For anyone who wants more then 150 they can change that in the registry. Honestly I've yet to see a single device with such a high DPI!
for the fun of it - i run wine at 144 it is one less than i need: 0:32 !1 ridcully(a)ofnir:~% grep DPI /var/log/Xorg.0.log (--) NVIDIA(0): DPI set to (147, 145); computed from "UseEdidDpi" X config (15" notebook with 1920x1200) -- cu
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com> wrote:
URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948...
Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700
winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
Dan, this basically reverted commit 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for higher DPI settings.
I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war.
Please see bug 9715.
480 was completely unusable; average Joes were setting it at random and were unable to use winecfg to reset it to something sane. I found a few monitors out there at 200 dpi, so perhaps that would be a reasonable upper limit, but we'd have to check to make sure that the average person with a crap monitor could set that to 200dpi, realize it was wrong, and set it back without having to edit the registry by hand. - Dan
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com> wrote:
URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be547ec4e1948...
Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700
winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
Dan, this basically reverted commit 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for higher DPI settings.
I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war.
Please see bug 9715.
480 was completely unusable; average Joes were setting it at random and were unable to use winecfg to reset it to something sane.
I found a few monitors out there at 200 dpi, so perhaps that would be a reasonable upper limit, but we'd have to check to make sure that the average person with a crap monitor could set that to 200dpi, realize it was wrong, and set it back without having to edit the registry by hand. - Dan
Why not wizardify it? "Enter the physical size of your screen: x in/cm y in/cm" Then use appropriate dpi based on current resolution? Does it not work like that? --John
On Saturday 26 April 2008 04:58:53 pm John Klehm wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
I found a few monitors out there at 200 dpi, so perhaps that would be a reasonable upper limit, but we'd have to check to make sure that the average person with a crap monitor could set that to 200dpi, realize it was wrong, and set it back without having to edit the registry by hand. - Dan
Why not wizardify it? "Enter the physical size of your screen: x in/cm y in/cm" Then use appropriate dpi based on current resolution? Does it not work like that?
What about getting the value from X? Since Windows only expects one DPI for both vertical and horizontal, while X provides two, Wine could just take the mean and autoset that on startup.
On Saturday April 26 2008 23:22:37 Dan Kegel wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Lei Zhang <thestig(a)google.com> wrote:
URL: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commit;h=faaccca59be08be54 7ec4e1948b6306eff3808a2
Author: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> Date: Tue Apr 22 17:56:36 2008 -0700
winecfg: Restrict dpi slider to sane values.
Dan, this basically reverted commit 0110512904d9c646abef416819a057c06d3f2c97, which bumped MAXDPI from 160 to 480 because some users specifically requested the ability for higher DPI settings.
I think we need to decide what we want and stop the tug-o-war.
Please see bug 9715.
480 was completely unusable; average Joes were setting it at random and were unable to use winecfg to reset it to something sane.
I found a few monitors out there at 200 dpi, so perhaps that would be a reasonable upper limit, but we'd have to check to make sure that the average person with a crap monitor could set that to 200dpi, realize it was wrong, - Dan
200 DPI limit is acceptable for most users. However, what this patch done by setting maximum to this small value (144) doesn't seems to be acceptable. There is enough users who want higher values and BTW I'm one of them (I need 150 and 160; I need two values because I have more than one monitor/computer). So if we want to set the maximum limit lower than on Windows we need to choose reasonable value for most of us. I propose that we agree on at least 200 DPI limit in winecfg otherwise this puts too much inconvenience (especially for everyone who create new WINE prefix for new set of Windows programs, and this is what I do regularly).
and set it back without having to edit the registry by hand.
Just a note: in all WMs I have tried winecfg remains usable even on 480 DPI because you can move the window as usually with Alt+Mouse_move or Meta+Mouse_move, and you need to move the window only once to reset the setting to any other value.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:54 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> wrote:
200 DPI limit is acceptable for most users. However, what this patch done by setting maximum to this small value (144) doesn't seems to be acceptable.
Users really are lost if they set a too-high value. They don't know how to do alt+mouse_move. Thus simply setting the limit higher again would be a support nightmare; we got a preview of that on wine-users recently, with user after user panicking. But as I wrote in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9715 we can probably do something that will make everybody happy: arrange for winecfg to never let the user set dpi so high that winecfg is bigger than the screen. That's probably pretty easy to do. And we can probably make high-res users happier still by defaulting to Xft.dpi (used by Gnome and maybe KDE; it's set by default to 96, but is increased by some users of high-res displays). Anyone willing to try implementing that? I'd do it, but I'm kind of limited by sore hands and time these days... - Dan
On Sunday April 27 2008 03:23:40 Dan Kegel wrote:
But as I wrote in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9715 we can probably do something that will make everybody happy: arrange for winecfg to never let the user set dpi so high that winecfg is bigger than the screen.
Yes, I think this would be better solution. This will probably will work well for everyone and will be much better than hard-coded limit.
"Dan Kegel" <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:54 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> wrote:
200 DPI limit is acceptable for most users. However, what this patch done by setting maximum to this small value (144) doesn't seems to be acceptable.
Users really are lost if they set a too-high value. They don't know how to do alt+mouse_move. Thus simply setting the limit higher again would be a support nightmare; we got a preview of that on wine-users recently, with user after user panicking.
But as I wrote in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9715 we can probably do something that will make everybody happy: arrange for winecfg to never let the user set dpi so high that winecfg is bigger than the screen. That's probably pretty easy to do.
And we can probably make high-res users happier still by defaulting to Xft.dpi (used by Gnome and maybe KDE; it's set by default to 96, but is increased by some users of high-res displays).
Anyone willing to try implementing that? I'd do it, but I'm kind of limited by sore hands and time these days...
How about doing what Windows does - add a font preview to allow the user to see an actual size of the font he/she will get after the change? -- Dmitry.
"Dan Kegel" <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:54 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> wrote:
200 DPI limit is acceptable for most users. However, what this patch done by setting maximum to this small value (144) doesn't seems to be acceptable.
Users really are lost if they set a too-high value. They don't know how to do alt+mouse_move. Thus simply setting the limit higher again would be a support nightmare; we got a preview of that on wine-users recently, with user after user panicking.
But as I wrote in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9715 we can probably do something that will make everybody happy: arrange for winecfg to never let the user set dpi so high that winecfg is bigger than the screen. That's probably pretty easy to do.
And we can probably make high-res users happier still by defaulting to Xft.dpi (used by Gnome and maybe KDE; it's set by default to 96, but is increased by some users of high-res displays).
IMO the Mozilla page you linked to in the bug is the correct approach. Users should set the DisplaySize setting in their X server configuration (if it isn't detected automatically). And applications should (by default) use the X server DPI calculated from that. Applications overriding the X server DPI are bad when you start to run them remotely. If users want a graphical way of setting physical display size, then that's a job for the desktop environments to provide some tools to configure the local X server. The only time Wine should have to worry about DPI is when running apps that haven't been designed with high DPI in mind and therefore don't scale well (for instance when font sizes are set in points and other GUI elements are sized or positioned using pixels). But for those apps it might be good enough to provide a simple checkbox that says "override DPI to 96" or some other sensible default value. I don't know if there actually are such apps.
"Tijl Coosemans" <tijl(a)ulyssis.org> wrote:
If users want a graphical way of setting physical display size, then that's a job for the desktop environments to provide some tools to configure the local X server.
Same applies to many other settings like fonts and colors. Wine uses the DPI setting only as a way to scale fonts, not as a general size scaler.
The only time Wine should have to worry about DPI is when running apps that haven't been designed with high DPI in mind and therefore don't scale well (for instance when font sizes are set in points and other GUI elements are sized or positioned using pixels). But for those apps it might be good enough to provide a simple checkbox that says "override DPI to 96" or some other sensible default value. I don't know if there actually are such apps.
Such apps would break in Windows as well, Win32 uses logical units for its GUI elements, not pixels. Besides, even Windows does go that far as forbidding large DPI values, but Windows makes it clear what a user will get using a font preview window. -- Dmitry.
On Sunday 27 April 2008 14:43:32 Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Tijl Coosemans" <tijl(a)ulyssis.org> wrote:
If users want a graphical way of setting physical display size, then that's a job for the desktop environments to provide some tools to configure the local X server.
Same applies to many other settings like fonts and colors. Wine uses the DPI setting only as a way to scale fonts, not as a general size scaler.
No, fonts and colors aren't server side settings. DPI is.
The only time Wine should have to worry about DPI is when running apps that haven't been designed with high DPI in mind and therefore don't scale well (for instance when font sizes are set in points and other GUI elements are sized or positioned using pixels). But for those apps it might be good enough to provide a simple checkbox that says "override DPI to 96" or some other sensible default value. I don't know if there actually are such apps.
Such apps would break in Windows as well, Win32 uses logical units for its GUI elements, not pixels.
Ah, that's good to know. Then why not get rid of that slider all together? DPI settings are not a Wine issue and should not be solved by Wine.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Tijl Coosemans <tijl(a)ulyssis.org> wrote:
The only time Wine should have to worry about DPI is when running apps that haven't been designed with high DPI in mind and therefore don't scale well (for instance when font sizes are set in points and other GUI elements are sized or positioned using pixels). But for those apps it might be good enough to provide a simple checkbox that says "override DPI to 96" or some other sensible default value. I don't know if there actually are such apps.
Such apps would break in Windows as well, Win32 uses logical units for its GUI elements, not pixels.
Ah, that's good to know. Then why not get rid of that slider all together? DPI settings are not a Wine issue and should not be solved by Wine.
Because DPI settings are kind of broken all over. We need a way to override things for Wine for the moment until e.g. X can autodetect monitor DPI reliably. But we should see if paying attention to Xft.dpi (itself a similar override that should go away) improves user experience. - Dan
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
How about doing what Windows does - add a font preview to allow the user to see an actual size of the font he/she will get after the change?
Yeah, that would be great. We did something like that in the Picasa for Linux font settings tool. Nigel said it was a real pain, though. I think it's much harder than it looks, not something we can do for 1.0. The cheezy hack I suggested should be easily doable by Friday, though. Hint, hint.
"Dan Kegel" <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
How about doing what Windows does - add a font preview to allow the user to see an actual size of the font he/she will get after the change?
Yeah, that would be great. We did something like that in the Picasa for Linux font settings tool. Nigel said it was a real pain, though. I think it's much harder than it looks, not something we can do for 1.0.
That's actually easy to implement, but the problem is that there is no free space in the Graphics tab of winecfg to add a preview control. That needs some redesigning work, I'll see how that could be done. -- Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)codeweavers.com> wrote:
That's actually easy to implement, but the problem is that there is no free space in the Graphics tab of winecfg to add a preview control. That needs some redesigning work, I'll see how that could be done.
All would be well if "Screen Resolution" had its own tab, perhaps.
"Dan Kegel" <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
That's actually easy to implement, but the problem is that there is no free space in the Graphics tab of winecfg to add a preview control. That needs some redesigning work, I'll see how that could be done.
All would be well if "Screen Resolution" had its own tab, perhaps.
Alexandre suggested to get rid of all the text comments on that page, I'll go that route. -- Dmitry.
Dan Kegel wrote:
And we can probably make high-res users happier still by defaulting to Xft.dpi (used by Gnome and maybe KDE; it's set by default to 96, but is increased by some users of high-res displays).
This will break Darwine. Xft.dpi does not exist on Apple's X11 implementation. James McKenzie
James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)sprintpcs.com> wrote:
Dan Kegel wrote:
And we can probably make high-res users happier still by defaulting to Xft.dpi (used by Gnome and maybe KDE; it's set by default to 96, but is increased by some users of high-res displays).
This will break Darwine. Xft.dpi does not exist on Apple's X11 implementation.
Wouldn't break Wine on MacOSX at all. We wouldn't do it there. - Dan
participants (12)
-
Austin English -
Benjamin M. Schwartz -
Chris Robinson -
Christoph Frick -
Dan Kegel -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
James McKenzie -
John Klehm -
L. Rahyen -
Lei Zhang -
Tijl Coosemans -
Vitaliy Margolen